childreti'sabilities to balance their own needs and goals with those of

Children's Conflict-Related Emotions:

In this chapter, we examine some of the emotional factors that influence chil-dren's understanding and behavior relative to conflicts and, consequently, thedevelopment of their autonomy as social agents. The principal focus is on chil-drenk actual emotional responses to various types of conflicts and, to a lesserdegree, on their conceptions of conflict-related emotions, We begin with theview that children's emotional responses during conflicts and their under-standing of those emotions are related to their ability to interact competentlywith peers. So,for example, childrenwho are emotionally aveTsive during con-flicts or who have atypical ideas about others' feelings may have fewer andpoorer-quality opportunities than their peers to learn nonaggressive ways ofresolving their conflicts. Ultimately, these problems with conflict resolutionmake it difficult for them to learn to negotiate with their peers and to developthe sorts of social and moral understanding that promote the development ofan autonomous self.

Conflicts, Morality, and Autonomy

Psychologists have long argued that conflicts provide a critical context for thedevelopment of both social and cognitive competencies. Piaget ([ 19751 1985).in particular, described how conflicts and resulting states of disequilibriumlead children 'to abandon less adequate cognitive models and move towardincreasingly sophisticated understandings of the world. In terms of social

Part of the researchdescribed in this chapter was supported by a grant to the first authorfrom the National Institute of Mental Health (R03MH49753).26 AUTONOMY CHILDREN'S

development, he proposed (1932) that interpersonal conflicts gradually lead

children to understand the perspectives of others, and ultimately to constructa sense of reciprocity and fairness. The few studies conducted from this theo-retical perspective do in fact suggest that social interaction pmmotes both cog-nitive (Bearison and GFS, 1979) and social-cognitive development (Damonand Killen, 1982). Killen and Nucci (1995) have recently noted some important implicationsand potential limitationsin the Piagetian perspective on the role of social con-flict in children's development: "Moralautonomy in Piagetian theory is a devel-opmental achievement reflecting a triumph of reason and reciprocity overegocentrism and respect for authority From our perspective, Piaget's use of theterm autonomy.is limited because it leaves out legitimate concerns of the indi-vidual, that is nonmoral autonomous goals. We believe that a focus on theemergence of 'moral autonomy' ignores legitimate aspects of the nonmoral selfthat we think are important and have been overlooked" (p. 53). In otherwords, Piaget stressed that children's egocentric needs and desires come intoconflict with the needs and desires of others, and the resulting conflicts (incombination with underlying cognitive changes) promote the development ofrole-taking, a sense of reciprocity and an understanding and acceptance of theneed for moral limits. For example, a sense of reciprocity emerges from thiscomment by an observed child, "If 1just take her toy because I want it, thenwhy can't she just take my toy whenever she wants it?" But what about con-flicts in which victimization, ownership, and other moral limits are not soclearly at issue?What if two preschoolers are both playing in the block comerand they both reach for the last block, which will complete the separate build-ings they are making? As Killen and Nucci note, many conflicts do not involve overt victimiza-tion or other clearly moral issues but rather two children independently pur-suing personal goals that happen to bring them into conflict. In thesesituations, children must still resolve a conflict between their own legitimateself-interests and those of others, and unlike the situation in acts involvingmoral victimization, simply subordinating one's needs and inhibiting behaviorare neither morally necessary nor even desirable. In these nonmoral conflicts,then, children w ill need to coordinate their own needs and those of others inways that promote a sense of personal agency and autonomy while also beingresponsive and fair. Thus conflicts are a critical interpersonal context for sev-eral related reasons.On the one hand, a;S Piaget suggested, they are importantfor establishing essential prescriptive limits on interpersonal behaviors, whatis not permissible. On the other hand, however, they help to define an area ofbehavioral choice, or what Nucci has called the personal domain (Nucci, 1981;Nucci and Lee, 1993). in which personal goals and pursuits are more salientthan overt prescriptive limits.Although many of children's actual conflictsmayrequire them to coordinate both of these moral and personal elements, anexclusive focus on the moral domain fails to address the developmentalimpor-tance of pursuing personal goals. CHILDRENS CONFLICT-RELATED EMOTIONS 27

In this view, childrens peer-peer conflicts are seen as allowing them to

explore the boundaries between their own legitimate personal needs and goalsand the legitimate needs and goals of others. Adults, however, also play a criti-cal, if immediately less obvious, role in this process. At one level, adults mustallow children the opportunity to work through at least some of their conflicts;too much adult intervention limits childrens opportunities to learn how toresolve conflicts on their own without external assistance, consequently hin-dering the development of independence and autonomy. At the same time,adults must make essential judgments about the MNR of childrensconflicts.When conflicts involve victimization or potential harm to others, adults becomeless concemed about limiting childrens opportunities than about addressingthese moral infractions. Thus adults make decisions to give priority to moral-ity or autonomy depending on the nature of the consequences of the action(Killen and Nucci, 1995, p. 65). When needed, adults may intervene in waysthat promote conflict resolution by negotiation and understanding rather thanby comrnands and sanctions (Killen, Breton, Ferguson, and Handler, 1994).

Affective Influences on Childrens

Conflicts and AutonomyIn our own research, we begin with the view that childrens conflicts and theirunderstanding of conflict-related events are critical contexts for the development of both their moral understanding and their behavior, as well as for theirpursuit of nonmoral goals. Furthermore, we believe that not all children areequally able to profit from their peer conflicts. Our particular interest is in theaffective factors, ranging from emotional dispositions (such as moods and PR-dominant emotional states) to childrens understanding of emotions, that arelikely to influence childrenbabilities to balance their own needs and goals withthose of others. Some childrkn, for example, may be less adept at recognizingthe emotional cues of their peers, and they may also be more prone to becom-ing emotionally dymgulated during the course of such conflicts. Consequentlywe would expect these children to exhibit more aggression with their peers, andto lose the developmental opportunitiespresented by conflicts. Taken onestepfurther, as these behavioral patterns become more stable, it becomes increas-ingly difficult for these children to balance their desires, obligations, and per-sonal goals, and ultimately, childrens sense of personal autonomy as well astheir perception of moral limitsmay become blurred, to the detriment of both. In this view, nonaggressive conflicts assume a special importance for chil-dnmh developingautonomy To the extent that child&& emotions and emotion-related abilitiesincrease the likelihood oftheir c d i c t s becoming aggressive,however, they will be less likely to develop conflict resolution strategies thatcan promote nonmoral autonomous goals. Although a conflict may begin astwo childrens opposition to each others legitimate goals (such as both need-ing that last special block to complete a project), once one child victimizes theother (such as by pushing her or him down and seizing the block), it becomes28 AUTONOMY CHUDRENS

nearly impossible to coordinate the needs of the self with the needs of otherpeople. In this sense, moral goals and nonmoral goals in childrens conflictshave a complex relationship: although nonmoral conflicts are unique and pm-mote different developmental goals than conflicts involving victimization,non-m o d opportunities emerge only when children refrain from resolving conflictsby victimization. To date, much of our research on these issues has focused on childrensconceptions of the emotional consequences of sociomoral events. As Harris(1985) noted, many of our behavioral decisions are influenced by an antici-pation of the way that we will feel in some future situation. A childs readinessto go to school, to brave the dentist, to seek out a new friend, or to run awayfrom punishment is based on an appraisal of how he or she will feel when fac-ing these situations(p. 162). In other words, childrens conceptions of situa-tional afect-thatis, of the linksbetween specific situations and their associatedaffective outcom-provide them with a means of anticipatingand evaluatingthe emotional outcomes and consequencesof a wide variety of social behaviors. One finding with particular relevance for this chapter is the happy vic-timizer expectancy. Several studies (Arsenio and Lover, 1995; Dunn, Brown,and Maquire, 1995) have found that most young children expect moral vic-timizers to feel happy following acts of victimization that produce clear mate-rial gains,even when the victim and victimizers are close friends (Arsenio andKramer, 1992). Furthermore, aggressive children (Lemerise, Scott, Diehl, andBacher, 1996) and convicted adolescent offenders (Arsenio, Shea, and Sacks,1995) are even more likely than their peers to expect m o d victimizers to feelhappy If in fact many children expect victimization to produce positive emo-tions and material gains, this expectancy could undermine their efforts toresolve conflicts without resorting to m o d transgressions. In her influential review on childrens conflicts, Shantz (1987) observedthat ucunouslylittle attention has been paid to childrensarousal,to their angeror glee during adversative episodes. . . .Childrens moods and emotions duringand after conflicts are uncharted areas (p. 300).Although this gap has beenaddressed somewhat in the past fifteen years (see especially Eisenberg and Gar-vey. 1981; Fabes and Eisenberg, 1992), we were concerned by how little weknew about childrensconceptions of sociomod emotions. Do young childrenactually display happiness in the course of some of their conflicts?What aboutthe targets of these conflicts?What emotions do they display?Although ouroriginal interest was in the happy victimizer expectancy it quickly became clearthat more general studies were needed to characterize the nature and impor-tance of childrensemotions during conflicts, and to understand how these emo-tions affected both childrens moral and nonmoral goals.

Emotions, Conflicts, and Aggression

During Preschoolers FreeplayWi th some of these issues in mind, Arsenio and Lover (1996) recently con-ducted a study to examine the relations among preschoolers emotions, con- CHUREN'S CON'NCT-REUTED EMOTIONS 29

flicts, and aggression during freeplay Nonaggressive conflicts were defined as

one child doing something to which a second child objected such words as"refusing,""objecting," and "disagreeing" often were used to characterizesuchinteractions. Aggressive conflicts were defined as one child aiming to hurtanother child or his or her things, or attempting to verbally derogate anotherchild (Shantz, 1987). One of our major goals was to examine whether chil-dren's emotions were connected differently with their aggressive and nonag-gressive conflicts. Specifically,we expected that childrenk emotions would bemore strongly linked with their aggression than with their nonaggressive con-flicts, because intense emotions seem more likely to be associated with theadaptational failures implicit in aggressive acts than with less hostile attemptsto resolve peer @Utes. Another goal involved examiningthe different contexts in which c h i l h bemotions emerge (that is, conflict-related emotions-emotions that emerge inboth aggressive and nonaggressive conflict-and nonconflict, or "baseline,"emotions). For example, in their work on the connectionsbetween preschool-ers' emotions and prosocial behavior, Denham and her colleagues (Denham,1986; Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, and Holt, 1990) found that childrenbgeneral moods (emotions not associated with prosocial events) were among thestrongest predictors of their prosocial reasoning and behavior. By contrast,when Arsenio and Killen (1996) assessed preschoolers' emotions during tableplay, they found that children's moods, or baseline nonconflict emotions, wereunrelated to their conflict behavior, whereas their actual conflict-related emo-tions had multiple connections with their participation in nonaggressive con-flicts (see also Fabes and Eisenberg, 1992). At a theoretical level, it is important to know whether children's generalbaseline emotions are related to their behavior-for example, compared totheir peers, are angry children more likely to become involved in conflicts?Alternatively, baseline emotions may be less predictive of negative behaviorsthan the emotions that children display during the actual course of their dis-putes: some childm may seem no different emotionally from their peers untilthey become intensely emotional during their conflicts. Finally, there couldalso be obvious connections across these contexts, with some children beingintensely emotional in both conflict and nonconflict settings. Although theoverall connections between childrenb affective dispositions and their aggres-sive and nonaggressive conflicts are likely to be quite complex, it seemedimportant to begin to address some of these questions in our study The resulting study involved freeplay observations of thirty-sevenpreschoolers. Observers recorded several different aspects of chilhnk conflict-related behaviors and natudy occurring emotions using a focal event samplingprocedure (Altmann, 1974) in which childrenwere observed for five randomlydistributed ten-minute periods over six weeks. Childrenk happy, sad, angry, and(relativelyrare) 'other" emotional @lays were assessed using an instrumentexpressly designed for the purpose of reliably coding "live action" emotions in t i ~ (Denham, 1986;Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, and Holt,n a t ~ r a l i ~settings1990). All nonconflict emotions expressed by focal childrrnwere recorded, and30 cHI1DREsAUTONOMY

in addition a separate record was made of the peakor predominant emotion

that c h i l h (both the focal child and her or his conflict partner) dsplayed dur-ing conflicts. Consequently, it was possible to arrive at a measure of childrensbaseline emotions as well as their specific conflict emotions. A separate insm- ment was used to record several other aspects of conflicts,including the type of conflict (aggrrssive or nonaggressive),the childb conflict role (actor or recipient), and the length of the conflict. (The nature of the childrens aggression, that is,whether it did or did not produce a clear material gain, was not recorded. As noted later, this may be an important issue when tqing to interpret the mean- ing of c h i l h s a e o n - r e l a t e d happiness.) A total of seventy-six conflicts was observed, including twenty-nine aggressive conflicts and forty-four nonaggressive conflicts (thuty-four of thuty- seven children either initiated or were the target of at least one conflict). In the more than one thousand recordedemotional displays, the emotion children displayed most often (90 percent of the time) during nonconnict periods was happiness. By contrast, children displayed few emotions during conflicts, butwhen they did, the emotion was usually anger. Overall. two-thirds of the chil- drens total number of angry displays occurred during the less than seventy- four minutes of conflict time, whereas the other third of their angry displays was spread over seventeen hundred minutes of nonconflict interactions. It is no surprise, then, that although conflicts are rare and short, they should not be thought unimportant. . . . These events appear to have substantial dective meaning for the children involved (Shantz, 1987,p. 286). As expected, analyses also xwealed some important connections between.childrensemotions and their conflict-dated behaviors. Children who dsplayed more frequent nonconflict anger and a higher percentage of anger overall weremore likely to become aggressivewith their peers, whereas nonconflict emo- tions were unrelated to childrensnonaggressive conflicts. In other words, hos- tile, angry moods were related to increased levels of aggression but not to increased levels of noriaggressive conflicts. A related pattern emerged for chil- drens conflict-related moods. The percentage of childrenk anger during nonag- gressive conflicts was unrelated to the kquency of any type of conflict behavior, in either aggressive or nonaggressive confhcts. Alternatively,children who dis- played a higher percentage of both anger and happiness during their aggressive conflicts were more likely to initiate aggression. A final hierarchical regression revealed that nearly a quarter of the variance in childrens initiation of aggres- sion could be predicted by a combination of the percentage of their nonconflict anger, the percentage of their aggression-related anger, and the percentage of their aggression-related happiness (r = .48, p c .05). Interestingly,childnmb per- centages of aggression-related happiness made a si@cant contribution even after accounting for their anger during aggression and baseline periods. It appears, then, that preschoolers emotions are more related to their aggressive behavior than to their nonaggressiveconflict behavior. In part this may be because children were also more intensely angry during aggrrssive con- flicts than during their nonaggressive conflicts-that is, aggression may pro- Cymms Comcr-ReuTn, EMOTIONS 31

vide children with a more challenging emotional context. The other strikingfinding is that children kquently expressed happiness during aggression, andchildren who displayed higher percentages of aggression-related happinesswere more likely to initiate aggression. These observational findings help toclanfy why, as discussed earlier, preschoolers typically expect victimizers tofeel happy following acts of victimization; in fact, initiators were happy dur-ing nearly one-thud of the aggressive encounters in the study. (It must benoted, however, that we did not record whether aggressolsobtained any directmaterial gam from their acts of victimization.) Most studies of childrenscon-ceptions of moral emotions have focused on victimization that produces con-crete gains, and it is not known how children evaluate acts of victimizationthatdo not involve such gains (see, however, Nunner-Winkler and Sodian, 1988,Experiment 2). In any case,it is clear that anger is not the only sigmficant con-flictual emotion. Overall, these hdings indicate that children who expressed a higher per-centage of nonpositive moods, especially anger, were more likely to becomeaggressive than their less negative, less angry peers. 11 is also noteworthy thatin both thisstudy and in Arsenio and Kiuen (1996), conflict initiators who dis-played a higher percentage of happiness were more likely to initiate conflictsand that, overall, negative emotionswere associated with childrens participa-tion in conflicts. Collectively,theseresults suggest that childre& hostile moods(both positive and negative) may also act to undermine the effective give-and-take needed for pursuing nonmoral personal goals. One difficulty with this interpretation of the results, however, is that itassumes that childrens emotions play a causal role in determining their con-flicwl interactions. Alternatively,it is also possible that childrenk mnflictualproblems are affecting their emotions or that there is a bidirectional relation-shipinwhich emotions are simultaneously both the cause and consequenceof childrensconflicts. For example, weak social-cognitiveskills and lower lev-els of social competence may be related to preschoolers conflictual behavior,and consequently,emotions may be a by-product as well as a direct cause ofincreased conflictual behavior. Although establishingcausality is always a complex task, it became clearto us that we needed more thanjust obsemtional measuxts to understand thelinks between childrens emotions and peer conflicts. Teachers and peers, forexample, could also provide critical sou- of additional infomtion regard-ing the nature and causes of these connections. Teachers are in a unique posi-tion to witness children across a wide range of contexts within a time framethat usually lasts many months. Similarly children can provide another, some-what different close-up view of their peers social behavim through theirsociometric ratings and nominations. Structured individual interviews withchildren were also needed to assess some of the social-cognitive abilities thatare implicated in their emotiog and conflictdated behavior. A larger, morecomprehensive study was needed to examine the links among preschoolersconflicts, their emotions,and the emergence of their autonomous goals.32 CHLu)RESAUTONOMY

Emotions, Conflicts, and Childrenk Peer Acceptance

In a seminal early study, Cowen and his colleagues (Cowen and others, 1973)were interested in idenufylng childhood risk factors that predict serious mal-adjustment later in life. After following children for more than ten years usinga variety of measures, they found that peer judgment was, by far, the mostsensitive predictor of later psychiatric difficulty(p. 438). Since then, an exten-sive body of researchhas accumulated (Parker and Asher, 1987) that linkschd-drens peer status (that is, the various ratings of their acceptance or rejectionby other children) with a variety of long-term outcomes, including aggression(Coie, Dodge, and Kupersmidt, 1990) and nonaggressivebut disruptive behav-iors (Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli, 1982). Consequently,in a subsequent study we decided to assess some of the gen-eral connections among childrens sociometric ratings, their conflict-relatedbehaviors and emotions, and their understanding of those emotions. W wereespecially interested in whether childrens level of peer acceptance (that is, theirtendency to be liked or disliked by their peers) was related to the M ~ U Rof theirpeer conflicts and the emotions associated with those conflicts.Although thereis an emerging interest in some of the emotional comlates of childrenbpeer sta-tus and acceptance (for example, Hubbard and Coie, 19941, many of the over-all connectionsbetween childrenb moods and conflict-related behaviors remainunclear. For example, Denham andcolleagues (Denham, 1986;Denham, McKin-ley Couchoud, and Holt, 1990) found that chilhnb understandmg of emotionswas related to both their peer status and their p r o d behavior. We wonderedwhether childrens understanding of emotions was also related to their peeracceptance and conflict-related behaviors. More specifically,would deficits inpreschoolersunderstanding of emotions be related to higher levels of aggnssivebehaviors, and consequently to fewer opportunities to pursue autonomous goals? Another goal was to assess childrens conflicts in more depth than we hadin our previous research. For example, one important issue involved examiningwhen and how adults and teachers intervene in childrens confIicts (see Killenand Turiel; 1991). Adult intervention clearly limits childrenb opportunities toresolve their ownconflicts and, as a result, may constrain the emergence of chil-clrensdependence and autonomy Yet adult interventionis obviously called forwhen c h i l h become aggressive or attempt to victimize their peers. One impor-tant question, then, is whether adults actually do intervene in merent waysdepending on the aggmsive or nonaggressive nature of childrens connicts. The remainder of this chapter is de+oted to describing the methods andinitial results of a study that was designed to provide more extensive informa-tion regarding the dective and sociometric factors that support the pursuit ofnonmoral autonomous goals in some children while making it difficult for oth-ers to refrain from victimizing their peers. Methods.. The study included several types of measures including M ~ U -ralistic observations of preschoolersconflicts and emotions; two individuallyadministered interviews of the preschoolers (a sociometric assessment and anassessment of their emotion-related knowledge); and several insuuments com-pleted by teachers to assess children's moods and emotional intensity, theiraggressive behaviors, their peer popularity, and their social skills. Partiapantsincluded Mty-one preschoolers (twenty-seven girls and twenty-four boys)between the ages of four and a half and five and a half from three preschoolclassrooms, and their teachers. All three classes were ethnically diverse, andmore than half of the subjects were either Hispan~cor African American. Mostof the children were from lower- to middle-class economic backgrounds. Observations of Emotions and Conflicts. A focal event sampling procedure(Altmann, 1974) was used to observe children for twelve 10-minute periods(120 minutes) randomly distributed over more than six months and over var-ious timesand activitiq in their preschool days. Childmk happy, sad, angryand (relatively rare) other emotional displays were assessed using the sameinstmment (Denham, 1986; Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, and Holt, 1990)and the procedures described earlier that were used for the Arsenio and Loverstudy (1996). A second observer recorded several aspects of all conflicts, againincluding the type of conflict (aggressive or nonaggresive), the child's role inan event, and length of the conflict. In addition, the conflict observer mordeda brief descriptive namtive for each conflict, using guidelines described inHartup, Lamen, Stewart, and Easwlson (1988). Essentially narratives includeda brief, nonjudgmental, and sequential description of how the conflict started,what childxm did during the conflict, and how it ended. Children's Emotion Intrrviav and Sociometric Ratings. In addition to theseobservations, children partiapated in twoindividual interviews. In the emotion-relatedassessment,chil~wet.easkedtolabelandmgnizeseveralbasicemo-tions and to judge the probable emotional outcomes of several types of eventsthat are farmliarto preschoolers, ranging from acts of victimizationand peer con-flict to typically enjoyable events (adapted from Denham,1986). Children alsomade peer assessments using the Asher, Singleton, Tinsley and Hymel(1979)preschool picture sociometric procedure (see also Denham, McKinley, Cou-choud, and Holt, 1990). Children rated each of theirpeers in terms of +ree cat-egories of liking (% a lot," "kindalike,"and "do not like") by placing pictunxiof their classmates into one of three appropriatelymarked boxes. Teachers' Assessments. Finally, at the end of the observational period,teachers completed four different assessmentsfor each child in their class: theDodge and Coie -on Scale (1987); an adaptation of Harter's PerceivedCompetence Scale for 'khildren (1979). which yielded separate scores for chil-dren's popularity with their peers (for example, "has many friends") and theirsocial competence and skills, a modification of the PANAS (Positive Affect andNegative Affect Scale) mood scale (see Clark and Watson, 19881,which pro-duces scores for overall level of positive and negative affect; and the EmotionalIntensity Scale, which assesses the intensity of children's positive and negativeemotionality. (The last three instruments were kindly provided by NancyEisenberg. See Eisenberg and Garvey, 1981, and Fabes and Eisenberg, 1992,for more information on these instruments.)34 CHILDRENS AUTONOMY

Results. Childrens sociometric ratings were used to assess peer accep-

tance. Childrens ratings of whether they liked their peers were converted intoa m w r e of peer acceptance based on the mean of all ratings for each partic-ular child, and these mean scores were then converted to within-class z-scoresto facilitate cornparisom across classes. Three separate groups were formed con-taining seventeen subjects eaclx a low-accepted peer group, ranging from some-what to strongly disliked by their peers (r-scores= -.48 to -1.78),an averagegroup (neither particularly liked nor disliked [z-scores = -.47 to +.531),and ahigh-accepted peer group (somewhat to strongly liked [z-scores = +.54 to+2.09]).All of the subsequent results are reported in terms of these three peer-acceptance groups-that is, how subsequent variables differed depending oneach subjectsinclusion in one of these three peer groups. Childrens Norumfit Emotions. The three peer groups did not differ in thetotal number of their *lays (that is, all of the nonconflict emotional displaystaken together; mean per child per hour = 38.52).In other words, the groupsdid not differ in terms of general emotional expressiveness. Subsequent analy-ses revealed, however, that although the groups did not differ in the numberof their happy (mean = 34.79)or sad *lays (mean = 1.501,disliked childrendid express more anger than liked children (3.23versus 1.25;disliked andaverage groups did not differ signhcantly: 3.23 versus 2.00).Furthermore,disliked children displayed a sigdicantly lower percentage of happiness (87.0percent versus 93.2percent) and a higher percentage of anger (8.0 percent ver-sus 3.5 percent) than liked children. Average and disliked children, however,did not differ in either their percentage of happiness (87.0percent versus 90.6percent) or their percentage of anger (8.0 percent versus 5.6percent). Overall, less-accepted children were not less emotionally e x p r e v e thantheir peers, but less-accepted children did display more total anger, as well asa higher percentage of anger and a lower percentage of happiness than likedchildren. Interestingly, this pattern (more anger and a higher percentage ofanger) for less-accepted children resembles the pattern that emerged for more-aggressive children in the previous study (Arsenio and Lover, 1996).This sim-ilarity is probably related to the high overlap typically found between peerrejection and aggression-with aggression typically accounting for about one-halfof the variance in peer rejection (Coie, Dodge, and.Kupersmidt, 1990). Inany case,it appears that childrens nonconflict emotions have systematic andimportant connections with both their conflict-relatedbehaviors and their lev-els of peer acceptance. Ernotion-Understanding Interviav. Results from the, emotion interviewrevealed that disliked children also had relative difficulties in their emotion-related abilities (including labehg and recognizingemotions and hkmg emo-tions and situations) in that disliked children had sigdicantly lower totalemotion-interviewscores than either average or liked children (30.43,33.94,and 33.80,respectively). The emotion deficits of disliked children are partic-h l y important since similar deficits predicted lower levels of prosodal behav-ior and reasoning in previous studies (suchas Denham, 1986).Similar13 these CHILDRENS CONFLICT--TED EMOTIONS 35

defiats are likely to make it more difficult for these children to be sensitive tothe emotional cues of their peers during their conflictual interactions in waysthat can promote childrens pursuit of autonomous goals. In this regard, it isworth noting that children with lower emotional understanding scores in thisstudy were also more likely to become physically aggressive with their peers(r = -.57,p c .001). Teachers Assessments. Two teacher assessments provided additional evi-dence that disliked childrenk emotions differed in problematic ways from thoseof their more-liked peers. Specifically,teachers judged that disliked childrenwere more likely to suffer negative moods and be more intense in their nega-tive emotions than their peers. By contrast, no group differences emerged foreither positive moods or positive intensity Teacher ratings of childrens social competence and aggression alsomealed a generally similar pattern of gmup Merences. within the socialcom-petence measure, teachers rated disliked children as having a lower level ofsocial skills than either liked or average children. In addition, they rated dis-liked children as being less popular with their classmates than liked children.In judging aggression, teachers said that disliked children were more aggres-sive than average children, and although liked and average children did notdiffer sigrufIcantly,the differencewas in the expected direction. In summary, a systematic and pervasive pattern of group daerencesemerged from the teachers ratings, observations of childrenk nonconflict emo-tions, and observations of their emotion-related understanding. Compared totheir peers, less-accepted preschoolers were more likely to display nonpositiveemotions and especially anger, to have difficulties in recognizing and under-standing emotions, to be rated as experiencing more intense negative moods,and to be seen as less popular and less socially skilled by their teachers. Inaddition, disliked childrensvery assignment to this p u p resulted from theirpeersjudgments that they were more problematic playmates than most otherchildren. The next important question is whether these differences are alsoreflected in c h i l h k conflict-related behaviors. Do peer groups differ in howlikely they are to become involved in conflicts?What about the nature of theirconflicts-are there differences in the types of conflicts they get into? Andfinally, what are the implications of such conflict-related findings for childrensability to pursue their own autonomous goals? childmsCafiicts. Children were observed paniapating in a total of 285conflicts,including172 nonaggressive conflicts and 113 conflicts involvingaggmsion of one form or another. Although disliked children were involvedin sipficantly more conflicts than either average or liked childnm (means =6.6,4.7, and 4.2,respectively, for disliked, average, and liked children). theseresults also differed depending on the aggressive or nonaggressive nature ofthe conflicts. The three groups did not differ in the number of their nonag-gressive conflicts (3.1,3.0,and 2.9,respectively, for disliked, average, andliked children), but disliked children were more likely to become aggressive (aggrrssive conflicts)than either theiraverage or liked peers (331.3,and 1.7).36 CHILDREN'S AUTONOMY

-child physically seizing an object belonging to another child). Disliked chil-dren were four times more likely than liked children (means 1.5versus .35) and twice as likely as average children (1.5versus .7) to become physicallyaggressive. In addition, disliked chlldren were almost twice as likely as eitherliked (1.3versus .6)or average children (1.3versus -8)to seize someone else'sobject. Finally, disliked children aggressed verbally more than average children (.7versus -2). and mmewhat more than liked children (.7ve- .35). Overall, these m l t s suggest that, as Killen and Nucci (1995)and othershave observed, nonaggressive and aggressive conflicts present very differentcontexts for the development of children's peer relationships. Children's peeracceptance does not seem to be influenced by the frequency of their nonag-gresive conflicts; rather, it is children's tendency to become aggressive in avariety of ways that is especially problematic. Consequently, children who are more likely to victimize their peers during conflicts will have proportionately fewer opportunities to engage in the sorts of conflict negotiations and resolu- tions that are essential for pursuing nonmoral autonomous goals. At the same time, however, that disliked children had a lower percentage of nonaggressive conflicts than their more accepted peers, the actual number of their nonaggressive conflicts did not differ from the other groups (that is, disliked children were involved in more total conflicts, both aggressive andnonaggressive,and more aggressive conflicts, but not more nonaggmsive con- flicts than their peers). It could be argued that as long as disliked children have'the same number of nonaggressive interactions as their peers, they will have suffiaent opportunities to develop other important nonaggressive strategiesfor resolving conflicts, and ultimately to pursue their nonmoral personal goals. Asubsequent analysis has important implications for this claim. Teachen' Interventions. A final set of analyses focused on teachers' inter-ventions in children's conflicts. Namely, how often did teachers intervene in children's conflicts, and did their choice to intervene vary depending on the aggressive or nonaggresive nature of the conflict? An interestingpattern of results emerged. It was found that teachers did not differ in how often theyintervened in three peer status groups' aggressive conflicts (25.9percent, 22.0percent, and 19.2percent, respectively, for disliked, average, and liked chil- dren's conflicts). By contrast, for nonaggresive conflicts, teachers intervenedmore often for disliked peers (35.3percent) than for either average (21.5per- cent) or liked children (18.6percent). It appears that once a conflict involves aggression, teachers are not i n t l ~enced by the level of a childb peer acceptance. In other words, inoral infmctionsrequire intervention regardless of who is involved. (The relatively low per-centage of teacher Mterventions into aggression is somewhat surprising, but inpart this could be because aggrrssiveconflictsare somewhat shorter than nonag-gressive conflicts-mean = 2.57 turns for nonaggressive conflicts and 2.21 foraggressive conflicts-so that they are W e d before teachers have a chance tointervene). It may be that agmsion requires intervention if the teacher is payingattention. By contrast, for nonaggrrssiVe conflicts,teacherswere less likely to allowdisliked children than to allow other childmn the opportunity to work throughtheir conflicts. Perhaps this is because teachers realize that disliked children getinto more aggressiveconflicts than theirpeers, and t e a k are afraid that unlessthey intervene, these conflicts have an increased probability of becoming aggres-sive. Unfortunately,this also means that disliked c h i l b will have fewer oppor-tunities in which to develop the social skills and understanding that mighteventuallyhelp them to pursue their personal goals in nonaggressiveways.

ConclusionIn this chapter we have argued that not all children are able to profit equallyfrom their peer conflicts. Our focus has been on individual differences in theaffectivefactors that influence childrens abilities to balance their own needsand goals with those of others without becoming aggressive. Results from sev-eral studies were summarized, and collectively these findings begin to shedsome light on the connections among childrens aggressive and nonaggressiveconflicts and their affective dspositions and knowledge. Most generally, preschoolersnaturally OcCuRing emotional displays werefound to have a number of systematic connections with their conflict-relatedbehaviors. Childrens tendency to display a high percentage of anger, in par-ticular, was related to higher conflictuallevels. In addition, teachers ratings ofchildrenk moods and emotional intensity as well as childrens sociometric rat-ings, confirmed the connection between higher levels of negative emotions andincreased risk for peer problems, including aggression. Some evidence alsosuggested that children @lay positive emotions when initiating conflicts, andthat a higher percentage of such happiness is linked with more frequent con-flict initiation (see Arsenio and Lover, 1995). It does appear, then, that chil-drens hostile moods (both positive and negative) are likely to undermine thenonaggressive give-and-take needed for pursuing personal goals. Another important finding is that childrens emotion-related understand-ing is associated with their socially competent behavior. Children who werebetter able to recognize emotions and to understand situational emotions wereless likely to become aggressive and were more accepted by their peers. Interms of childrensemergingsense of autonomy,we would expect that childtenwho are sensitive to the emotional cues of others not only are less likely tobecome aggressivebut also will be more likely to resolve conflicts in ways thatwill allow them to pursue their own personal goals effectively (for instance,byusing negotiation and providing peers with alternatives).38 AUTONOMY CHILDREN'S

Finally these results suggest that, as Killen and Nucci (1995) and othershave observed, aggressive and nonaggressive conflicts present different con-texts for the development of children's peer relationships. Children'semotions,for example, were more predictive of their aggressive behavior than of theirnonaggressive behavior, and children's peer acceptance depended on haw oftenthey initiated aggression but not on their amount of involvement in nonag-gressive conflicts. In other words, it is children's tenden-cyto become aggres-sive rather than their involvement in nonaggmsive conflicts that appears to bemost problematic. Obviously however, this does not mean that what childrenactually do during their nonaggressive conflicts is unimportant. Although notassessed in this chapter, other studieshave shown that certain conflict resolu-tion strategies are more likely than others to promote children's pursuit ofautonomous goals (see Chapters One,Three, and Five). With this in mind, oursubsequent analyses will focus on whether children's behavior during nonag-gressive conflicts can help to explain why teachers intervened more often inthe nonaggressive conflicts of disliked children than in those of other children.

W W ARSENIO is associateprofessor of psychology at FerkaujGraduatesthool of

Psychology,Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshtva Universi& Bronx, New Yorh.SHARON COOPERMANis a doctoral student at Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychol-ogy. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, New York